May 30, 2013 (NOT-OD-13-074) -
NIH to Require Use of Updated Electronic Application Forms for Due Dates on or after September 25, 2013. Forms-C applications are required for due dates on or after September 25, 2013.

The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the
Administration on Aging (AoA) invite applications using the R01 award
mechanism for translational research that moves evidence-based research
findings towards the development of new interventions, programs, policies,
practices, and tools that can be used by community-based organizations to
help elderly individuals remain healthy and independent, and living in their
own homes and communities. The goal of this FOA is to support translational
research involving collaborations between academic research centers and
community-based organizations with expertise serving the elderly (such as city
and state health departments, city/town leadership councils, and Area
Agencies on Aging) that will enhance our understanding of practical tools,
techniques, programs and policies that communities across the nation can use
to more effectively respond to needs of their aging populations.

(Now Expired March 21, 2014 per issuance of PA-14-161), Originally May 8, 2014

Due Dates for E.O. 12372

Not Applicable

Required Application Instructions

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in
the SF
424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise (in
this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).
Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA)
is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all
application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any
program-specific instructions noted in Section
IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the
Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that
do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Administration
on Aging (AoA) invite applications for translational research that moves
evidence-based research findings towards the development of new interventions,
programs, policies, practices, and tools that can be used by community-based
organizations (for example, city and state health departments, city/town
leadership councils, and Area Agencies on Aging) to help elderly individuals
remain healthy and independent, and living in their own homes and communities.

Background

This joint initiative between the NIA and the AoA addresses
complementary goals of the two agencies to improve the health and well-being of
older Americans. NIA has long been the primary sponsor of research in social
and behavioral sciences on the processes of aging at both the individual and
societal levels. This long-term investment in research has generated a large
body of knowledge about how people change over the adult life course (both
physically and in such areas as cognition, motivation, emotion, personality,
and memory), on the inter-relationships between older people and social
institutions, and on the economic impact of both changing age-composition of
the population and public/private programs that serve older populations. For
many years, the NIA has supported research at both (i) the population level, on
the antecedents and impact of changing social, demographic, economic, and
health characteristics of the older population, and (ii) the individual level,
on the bio-psychosocial processes linking health and behavior, cognitive and
emotional functioning, human factors, and integrative approaches to the study
of social, psychological, contextual/environmental, genetic, and physiological
influences on health and well-being over the life course. Recent years have
seen an explosion of fundamental insights in the social and behavioral
sciences. Translating this knowledge into practical advances to benefit the
health and well being of older Americans has increasingly become a priority for
the NIA.

The mission of AoA is to develop a comprehensive,
coordinated system of services and supports at the community level that helps
elderly individuals maintain their health and independence in their homes and
communities. AoA advances its mission by working with and through the national
Aging Network that includes 56 State and Territorial Units on Aging (SUA), 629
Area Agencies on Aging (AAA), 246 Indian Tribal and Native Hawaiian
organizations, nearly 20,000 direct service provider organizations, and more
than 500,000 volunteers. Each year this network provides directly a wide array
of services and supports to over 10 million older individuals and almost 1
million family caregivers. AoA’s programs complement existing medical and
health care systems and support some of life’s most basic functions, such as
providing assistance in elders’ homes to help them with bathing or preparing
food. The network also helps consumers learn about and access the services and
supports that are available in the community and addresses issues related to
caregivers. Although there is some adoption of translated evidence-based
interventions into practice by the Network, it has been limited thus far and
few evidence-based interventions have been brought to scale nationwide.

Thus, this FOA encourages applications that focus on the
translation of evidence-based behavioral and social research in aging into the
development of new interventions, programs, policies, practices, and tools that
can be used by community-based organizations (for example, city and state
health departments, city/town leadership councils, and Area Agencies on Aging)
to help elderly individuals remain healthy and independent, and living in their
own homes and communities for as long as possible. This is an example of what
is commonly referred to as “T2” research, or research on the second stage of
the translation continuum, which focuses on enhancing the adoption of best
practices in the community, across a wide range of public, private, academic
and other healthcare and policy settings.

Research Scope

Evidence-based research used in submitted applications for
translation into practice should have been tested, appear in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, and should have demonstrated reliable links between
hypothesized mechanisms and modifiable outcomes at the individual or population
level. Applications should also be able to demonstrate that the research used
has reasonable potential for practicability and scalability.

Applications should also show evidence of collaboration
between academic research centers and community-based organizations (as defined
above) that leads to new interventions, policies, practices and tools that can
be used by community-based organizations to help seniors remain healthy and
independent and living in their own homes and communities for as long as
possible. Ideally such collaborative applications will result in partnerships
that will move evidence-based science findings into practice. Applications are
especially encouraged that involve community-based organizations as full
partners in each phase of work (e.g., from conception, design, conduct,
analysis, interpretation, conclusions to communication of results). Such
community-partnered research processes offer the potential to generate
better-informed hypotheses, develop more effective interventions, and enhance
the translation of the research results into practice. Applications are
encouraged across a broad range of studies needed for the translation of evidence-based
behavioral and social science research on aging. Applications are especially
encouraged that leverage the work of AoA-supported community-based
organizations and networks. Applications may focus on a single topic area but
are encouraged to propose the use of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
approaches to translation. Further, applications should provide evidence of
scalability by demonstrating that what is learned in a given community-academic
setting can be used in larger provider and community based networks. Resulting
research should include an evaluative element to demonstrate program and cost
effectiveness.

The following are examples of potential application
topics. Other research that provides a link between science and practice is
certainly invited.

Translation of research on how subjective
well-being is impacted by aging-relevant life transitions, including changes in
employment or health status, marital status, and social engagement, where
potential modifiable factors at the individual or population level have been
identified that might serve as cost-effective intervention targets at the
community level to promote improvements or maintenance of subjective well-being
in later life.

Translation of research results that improve home
and community based services (e.g. transportation, including older-driver
skills building, and in-home services such as personal care).

Translation of research results that focus on
positive health behavior change (e.g., smoking cessation, improvements in diet,
increasing physical activity), especially recent results from the literature on
self-regulation and behavioral economics (e.g., the use of “nudges” and
defaults, explicit manipulation of gain and loss frames).

Translation of research that supports informal
caregiving, such as REACH II. This includes evaluation of the impact on
caregivers in terms of their health, functioning and well-being. Of particular
interest are models that build the clinical and non-clinical skills of unpaid
caregivers (e.g., training/skills building on medication management; nutrition;
assistance with ADL and IADL management; and self-management).

Translation of research results on chronic care
models that improve coordination of care, reduce fragmentation, and improve
health outcomes.

Translation research that enhances social
connections and the role of older individuals in promoting productive aging,
such as volunteerism.

Translation of research on workplace factors that
promote flexibility, productivity, and work-family balance to enhance the
health and well-being of older workers and to maintain older adults in the
workplace.

Translation research that seeks to improve the
physical, psychological, and emotional well-being of older at-risk and
vulnerable adults (e.g., caregivers, minorities, persons with limited English
proficiency, geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged).

Section
II. Award Information

Funding Instrument

Grant

Application Types Allowed

New
Renewal
Resubmission
Revision

The OER
Glossary and the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on
these application types.

Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations,
and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Award Budget

Application budgets are not limited, but need to reflect
actual needs of the proposed project.

Award Project Period

Scope of the proposed project should determine the project
period. The maximum period is 5 years.

NIH grants policies as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement will apply to the
applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Eligible Organizations

Higher Education Institutions:

Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education

Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions
are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private
Institutions of Higher Education:

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are
not eligible to apply.
Foreign (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not allowed.

Required Registrations

Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply
for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following
registrations.

All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PIs) must
also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons
or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons
account of the applicant organization.

All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant
organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least
four (4) weeks prior to the application due date.

Eligible Individuals (Project Director/Principal Investigator)

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Project Director/Principal
Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an
application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic
groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply
for NIH support.

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application,
provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA
that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review
unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any
application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the NIH Policy on Resubmission
Applications from the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Section IV. Application and Submission
Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application
package associated with this funding opportunity using the “Apply for Grant
Electronically” button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.

2. Content and
Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in
the SF424
(R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding
opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in
the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are
out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for
review.

Required and Optional Components

The forms package associated with this FOA includes all
applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some
components marked optional in the application package are required for
application submission. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R)
Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate “optional” components.

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application
Guide and the Table of
Page Limits must be followed.

PHS 398 Research Plan Component

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide
must be followed.

Resource Sharing Plan

Individuals are required to comply with the
instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model
Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) as provided in the SF424
(R&R) Application Guide.

Appendix

Do not use the appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow
all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R)
Application Guide.

3. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in
advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application
corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.

Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants
across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission
process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants
administration.

Applicants
are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate
and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of
on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission
process, visit Applying
Electronically.

Important
reminders:All PD/PIs must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential
fieldof the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF 424(R&R) Application
Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI
Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an
electronic application to NIH.

The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for
completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.

Requests of $500,000 or more for direct costs in any year

Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in
any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 6 weeks before
submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review
of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as
described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for
post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.

Section
V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered
in the review process. As part of the NIH mission,
all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral
research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer
review system.

Overall Impact

Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to
reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a
sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in
consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria
(as applicable for the project proposed).

Scored Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in
the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An
application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to
have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not
innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a
critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are
achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical
practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the
concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s)

Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers
well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators,
or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate
experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing
record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is
collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and
integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and
organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation

Does the application challenge and seek to shift
current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical
concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are
the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions
novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement,
improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be
managed?

If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment

Will the scientific environment in which the work
will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional
support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators
adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique
features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative
arrangements?

Additional Review Criteria

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will
evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and
technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will
not give separate scores for these items.

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children

When the proposed project involves clinical research,
the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and
members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional
information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live
vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the
following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains,
ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and
for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of
veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and
injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound
research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs
and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason
for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For
additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please
refer to the Worksheet
for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Biohazards

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures
proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the
environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the
application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to
comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the
project.

Renewals

For Renewals, the committee will consider the
progress made in the last funding period.

Revisions

For Revisions, the committee will consider the
appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the
Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in
the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee,
then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the
previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes
are clearly evident.

Additional Review Considerations

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will
consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items,
and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Not applicable.

Select Agent Research

Reviewers will assess the information provided in
this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in
the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select
Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor
possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate
biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

May undergo a selection process in which only those applications
deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top
half of applications under review), will be discussed and assigned an overall impact/priority
score.

Will receive a written critique.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications
will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of
review by the appropriate advisory council or board . The following will be
considered in making funding decisions:

Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as
determined by scientific peer review.

Availability of funds.

Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the
PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique)
via the eRA
Commons.

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee business official.

Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

A final progress report, invention
statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is
relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is
terminated.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of
2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants
to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation
under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of
applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to
the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants
Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and
under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.